Susan Jacoby's "The Age of American Unreason"
BB submitted this link in relation to a discussion on Evolution verses Intelligent Design, yet I fail to see the connection, for there is no mention of the subject in the Linked Page.
I sort of agree that there is often an air of "Public Ignorance" in our country, as well as "a Culture at odds with America's Heritage" and "with Modern Knowledge and Science", yet I would define "American's Heritage" as the Morality of the Founding Fathers, that was mostly based on their strong Belief in God and grounded in Christianity and would define "Modern Knowledge and Science" as ALL of science, including that which has been introduced by those who support Intelligent Design.
The "Anti-Intellectual Tendencies", as well as the "Anti-Rationalism" that this Link speaks of is just another way of describing what I have heard called "Post-Modernism", which among other things, involves a mistrust for both Science and also Objective Thought. The Subjective is respected more than the Objective, yet unfortunately, truth can not be found completely by just exploring a few examples from a few individual lives.
The description of TV and Videos that is made in the Linked Web Page reminds me of how I studied recently of how so many of the current action shows change from one screen to the next so rapidly that it has a Hypnotic Effect that has a tendency to shut the brain off, allowing very little room for the viewer to think rationally about what he or she is seeing on the screen.
I'm not sure what is meant by "Junk Thought" on Blogs, though not requiring students to obtain "a thorough grounding in American and World History, Science and Literature" is obviously a negative and "Disdain for Logic and Evidence" is a negative as well.
Yes, we have Poor Education and yes, we have "a lazy and credulous public, increasingly unwilling or unable to distinguish between fact and opinion". I even agree that we have an "Anti-Rational Government".
I was glad to read that Susan Jacoby describes "Dumbness" relating to both the Political Right and the Left, for I would agree with that.
I actually found the Linked Web Page, it's description of "The Age of American Unreason", of our "Descent into Intellectual Laziness" and of our "Flight from Reason" quite interesting and I was following Susan Jacob's ideas and even agreeing with them right up until the phrase "Anti-Rational Religious Fundamentalism" was mentioned. That came across to me as a False Accusation and a clear example of Stereo-Typing.
Interestingly, I agreed with all that I read, with the exception of one Stereo-Typing Phrase and I also do not see how this is relevant to the discussion of Evolution verses Intelligent Design. The subject is not at all mentioned in the Linked Page and in order to make it relevant, one would have to add another Stereo-Typing phrase implying that those who support Intelligent Design are guilty of all that is mentioned on this Linked Page and to that I would have to say that I do not agree with the accusation, but than again, the subject of Evolution verses Intelligent Design was not mentioned at all in the Linked Page.
Please take the time to read the discussion below my post Equations we Live By/Gen./Evolution v. Intelligent Design, as well as the others under the Label to the Right, "Science and Research".
42 comments:
this topic was discussed in the movie
expelled...no intelligence allowed
the fact that any thought or consideration of ID can cause the scientist to be fired or thrown out of the scientific community.
i do teach ID in my home school, but i do not hide the evolutionary theory under a rock. my boys know they are both out there. if they are both looked at in the light of day...a logical choice can be made.
kw
Thanks for your Comment, Kris. Very well said.
Oh and BTW, no one "hides Evolutionary Theory under a rock". That sounds more like something Evolutionists would accuse us of than like anything that any of us would ever do.
Why must it always be touted as one vs. the other?
Honestly, what could be more "Intelligent(ly)" divine than "designing" a living, breathing, "evolving" structural system on this planet of ours?
So far as I can tell, the two mutually co-exist.
Evolution and Intelligent Design can co-exist if all that Evolution means is Natural Selection, but as soon as the word "Random" is added and it is described as "Random Natural Selection", than the Creator is left out of the picture. Also, though Natural Selection within one Species has been observed, Natural Selection between the Species has never been observed or proved in any way.
To accept something because it seems to make sense is not the Scientific way of viewing things. To be Scientific, one has to evaluate the evidence and base their conclusions on what they observe. If there is not Scientific proof of something, than there is not Scientific proof of something. To be honest about this is not disrespectful of Science. It's just honest. That's all.
And anyway, there is a verse in the Bible that Science has not been able to disprove and that is...
"And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:21, KJV) and "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:25, KJV).
If Evolution can not prove Natural Selection between Species than they can not prove what they can not prove. This is just a fact. I'm not being unkind. I'm just telling you what's true.
Being resistant to the presentation of a second theory in school is ridiculous paranoia and makes no sense.
A cat is always a cat, their may be different breeds, but they are all still cat. The same with every other species. Cross species breeding, if you will, does not create a viable product, no matter how many millions of years you try.
I am studying out solar system in my 3rd grade home school class. Just the location of our planet, in what they call the sweet spot, is a miracle. Any farther or closer to the sun would result in a planet too cold or too hot for life. Accident? Possible, but where in nature does order come from disorder?
Apologies for the link: the book does mention the controversy, let me paste from her index:
anti-evolutionism, xvii, 21-8, 62-3, 67-8, 240; anti-communism linked to, 85-6 96; biblical literalism and, 63, 68, 79, 80-1, 112; elementary and secondary
schooling and, 24-25, 28, 187, 201
309, 312; intelligent design and, 26 27-28; “just a theory” argument and, 23-24; scientific ignorance and, 22-23, 25, Scopes “monkey trial’ and, 21-22, 28, 78-9. see also evolution
.."than the Creator is left out of the picture." I thought we were talking ID, not creationism?
I think we have been over (deja vu) "but as soon as the word "Random" is added and it is described as "Random Natural Selection", Evolution theory posits
random mutation and natural selection, not random natural selection. Even the guys over at
the D-Institute adhere to what they call 'microevolution'..eg
common among unicellular life, bacteria, viruses, etc. Since they
reproduce by minutes, we note random changes in their DNA..if these changes exhibit improved phylogeny they prosper. Hence HIV, for example, becoming antibiotic resistant pretty rapidly..or MRSA, or DDT resistant mosquitos. This is why the fruitfly is such a frequent candidate for evolutionary research. As I understand ID, such random mutations are carried out by some
ephemeral designer, rather than
nature? Well, anyhoo, the linked book is interesting in its other aspects as well, delving into the
conundrum mentioned above by Soapbox "Why must it always be touted as one vs. the other?"
Thanks so much for your comments, Kris. I get so tired of repeating this stuff over and over again, so any help I can get from others on the web is really greatly appreciated.
You observe "If Evolution can not prove Natural Selection between Species than they can not prove what they can not prove." I don't follow..are you saying that speciation occurs only by divine intervention..er, I mean intelligent design? If it does..
how? Otherwise, evolutionary theory explains speciation. I dunno, not familiar with 'selection between species'
BB,
Biblical Literalism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing. In fact, Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing.
Creationism is the belief that the Creation happened in 6 days, just as the Bible says. Intelligent Design implies a Designer, but not necessarily the Creator that is accepted by any particular religion. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it a Creator in this context. Sorry; that was a slip of the tongue.
Without getting too technical with the terminology used, the word "Random" implies no "Designer", thus, no Intelligent Design.
I'm not debating "Micro-Evolution", never have and never will. That is not where the controversy lies.
The part of this issue that is political is what should be taught in school, not which theory is more correct, so carrying the idea "Why must it always be touted as one vs. the other?" a little further, yes, why should it be one or the other taught in school? Why not both?
Well said Lista. I happen to be a true Creationist. I do believe in the 6 day creation. When you think about it and study it, it takes just as much faith, if you will, to believe things like: the big bang theory or that fish came out of the water and grew legs, or that one day a dinosaur egg hatched a bird like creature. I am not trying to make light of this subject, but there is a lot of faith involved on both sides of the issue.
The movie I mentioned in my first comment speaks more to the Intelligent Design issue. It asks the one question that the most renowned evolutionists of our time cannot answer: Where did life come from? Evolution or not, we still do not know how life began. I do have a link to the movie on my blog.
kw
Kris,
The reason why Creationism and Intelligent Design need to be kept separate is because Creationism can not be taught in school because of the Separation of Church and State issue, yet Intelligent Design is a science and is not connected with any one religion and thus, the request for it being taught in school is reasonable.
You are absolutely right about the fact that Belief in Evolution requires Faith. This is the very thing that Evolutionists are in denial about.
One of the things I said in the comment section of the next post down is worth repeating here.
"I get so tired of having the Science of Intelligent Design called Faith and the Faith of Evolution called Science. That is where the primary flaw lies."
Sorry BB,
I missed responding to the last of your comments. What I am saying is that Intelligent Design can not prove all of their Theories, but neither can Evolution. Both are unproven Theories. Evolution is one explanation of Speciation and Intelligent Design is another. Neither can be proved. That's why they are called Theories.
It is not fair for Evolutionists to insist that Intelligent Design Advocates offer proof of everything when Evolutionists can not do it either. My guess is that that book that is referred to in the Linked Page of this Post goes on and on about all the weaknesses of Intelligent Design, yet makes no mention of the weaknesses of Evolution Theory.
Most of what Evolutionists accuse Intelligent Design Advocates of is also true of Evolution. The debate between the two clouds the real issue, which is that both are Theories and neither can be proved.
We may not be able to agree:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20061222-000001.xml
..cuz of our hardwiring. :)
Well, I glanced at the article you just gave me a link to and printed it out so that I can read it a little later after I'm finished with the rest of what I need to do on the computer. I want to thank you, BB, for giving me a few links that are brief. I do better with those than with the longer ones.
Just for a really quick response, I'm not surprised that there might be some actual differences in the hard wiring of Liberals and Conservatives. I've often felt that there are genetic factors that contribute to ones ability to thrive, or not thrive in a Capitalist society.
Those who can thrive are obviously going to favor the idea of Capitalism, as uninterrupted and interfered with as possible. Those who can't thrive quite as well are going to favor programs that offer various different kinds of assistance and regulations that force those who thrive to be just a little more fair so that those who don't thrive as well can at least have a little bit of a chance.
I haven't read the article, yet what I have just stated seems so obvious to me. I look forward to reading the article and seeing how well it fits with what I've just said.
Getting back to the subject of Evolution verses Intelligent Design, though, regardless of whether or not a person can thrive or not thrive in a Capitalist Society, the Liberal fear of anything that has anything to do with God, or any type of Creator or Designer comes across to me as more Emotional than Logical.
I can not repeat it enough that the issue is not about which side is right and which side is wrong, but about the fact that neither can be fully proved and thus, both should be taught.
Since the issue is not about which side is right and which side is wrong, debating the issue is actually sort of meaningless and a distraction from the real issue. Preventing one of the two Scientific Theories from being taught can not be explained any other way other than just plain Paranoia. Forgive me, but that's just how I see it.
Regarding paranoia and your note about Christian fundamentalists being excoriated, this guy seems to fit the bill. Even more odd, he has a master's in divinity from
Harvard and wrote a damning book about atheists. Curmudgeon?
More to read. Oh well. Keep standing by. I'll get to it.
Just from scanning through that article, I'm realizing that I'm not really that eager to read it. Those who oppose Christianity are so full of false accusations that I actually found it hard to believe the first time all the false statements were pointed out to me.
I have a tendency to want to trust people and I've been finding it so hard to believe how dishonest people are when they write articles, even "Scientific" ones. I keep wondering how they can keep getting away with that. I find it quite appalling.
It's not hard to get so distracted by the job of correcting all the numerous mis-statements, that there is no time left for actually speaking about what's true. I could probably do entire posts in response to every link you give me to read. I'm sitting here now and wondering if that is really the direction that I'm supposed to go in.
No, I wouldn't bother with a rebuttal. I left the link to demonstrate black/white thinking
is not limited to any particular mindset and I knew you would find it very offensive. Apologies; it was offered regarding your previous
'christianity under attack from all fronts..." As well, it shows
the sort of stuff floating the web-o-sphere. It's what happens when
we denigrate those who do not agree with our POV.
I'm not really that offended. I'm getting really tragically used to this sort of thing. It just annoys me that people can so easily get away with such misinformation when they are claiming to present the truth and they do it right along side of their claims that people no longer know the difference between opinion and truth, just as the author in your most recent link in your above comment also says.
This annoys me not just for the sake of personal offense, but because there are people out there who are actually deceived by it and that bothers me far more than any personal feelings of offense.
I hate to say this, but Evolutionists are guilty of presenting a lot of misinformation about Intelligent Design Advocates as well and there is misinformation in the Articles that are being addressed by the Linked Article in the Post Attack on Abstinence Education: Fact of Fallacy?.
You have to remember, just because someone points out that Americans do not seem to know the difference between fact or opinion anymore, does not mean that the person who said this is going to present facts whether than opinions. IMO, this is a whether deceptive introduction that is no doubt followed by a lot of the the same false accusations that I've gotten so used to hearing repeated by those who oppose anything that's even remotely connected to religion or morality.
POV? That's a Text Messaging Code that I haven't learned yet.
In my above comment, I left a link to the Article that my Previous Post was about. Here is a link to the Post in which I commented on the Article.
POV is 'point of view'. LOL! One of those silly text-messaging type shortcuts, I guess. For example, if I defend evolutionary theory, I attack ID in your POV? Or vice versa in my POV? LOL! Difference between opinion and truth..I know what opinion is...truth is, well..you tell me...
Actually, I do not mind if you defend Evolutionary Theory. You are entitled to believe what you wish on the matter. I will be bothered a little, though, if you defend the right of Evolutionists to continue forbidding the teaching of Intelligent Design in the Schools. This is when the POV becomes a Political Issue, whether than just a POV.
What's truth? My opinion, of course. What else could it be? lolol.
It is a scientific issue. Discovery Institute is making it a political issue. Evolution is simply explained here
I have been looking for a similar
position which explains ID in terms of what we know (or in deference to your POV, think we know) about genetics, medicine, paleontology,
embryology, virology, microbiology, archeology, neurology, botany, icthyology,
biophysics, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, geophysics,
and other 'so called sloppy sciences'. Perhaps why arthopods
vary from cephalopods, or something. BTW (by the way :)
I appreciate your civility, given
the conceptual gulf and I shall try to mind my manners. :)
"What's truth? My opinion, of course." Tis about as good a definition as I've seen :) and that's the TRUTH..btw LOL. *heh*
Discovery Institute could not make this a Political Issue until they had enough Scientific Evidence in order to make their request feasible. It takes two to tangle, though, you know. "Making something into a Political Issue" can never be blamed on one of two opposing sides.
As far as minding your manners, BB, you are doing just fine.
I still don't think you know what I mean by "Sloppy Science", though. Perhaps that wasn't the best thing to call it. Sloppy just makes it sound careless, yet quite often it is worse than that. When issues get political, Scientists get down right dishonest. They say things that aren't even true and misrepresent the evidence. Once again, that is what the "Attack on Abstinence Education: Fact or Fallacy" post and link was about. The links are in my above comments.
There is truth that is more obvious. Not all "Opinions" are quite so debatable. Some truth is just like that Elephant in the Room that can't really be missed, but people deny it's existence anyway.
The article you left a link to is about Natural Selection within a Species, or Micro-Evolution, and I've already told you that this is not where the controversy is. The article explains how Evolutionists think this relates to "The Origin of New Species", but does not in any way prove it. This part of it is STILL THEORY.
Just because an explanation can be given as to how they think it works, does not make the between Species part of the Theory a Scientific Fact.
I can repeat this a million times and yet those who want to continue believing that Evolution is a Proven Fact, keep repetitively bringing up the same Within Species arguments, as if that some how proves that Natural Selection can somehow Create a New Species, but this has never been observed or in any way proved.
All that we really want is for Evolutionists to admit that they can not prove their Theory and in doing so, teach it more honestly.
Microevolution is not 'evolution within a species'..it is relatively rapid adaptation, as in viruses and other unicellular organisms. 'Speciation', or appearance of new species, such as
"After drying out three times over its 400,000-year history, the lake refilled about 15,000 years ago, and the few cichlid fish species that had retreated to fluvial habitats returned, rapidly fanning out into hundreds of new species to fill different ecological niches." here
..an example often used to explain that portion of the theory. Since
speciation takes place over long periods of time, much longer than the cichlid example, relative to our lifespans, we will not see it
(whether we adhere to ID or ET).
In general, we define species as those genera members who cannot successfully interbreed, the explanation theory being that subpopulations which become physically separated (such as the cichlids) or say, old world and new monkeys (separated by continental drift..continue to be subject to DNA mutation over thousands and millions of generations; until their genetic compositions are such that they
can no longer successfully interbreed. I have not seen the ID argument for how this would happen? The creationist POV is that each species was made by God. Once. And have continued unchanged. Not only is that not biological science, it staggers the imagination that Noah would gather each pair of the known 2,000,000 species on his ark.* That is not impossible, but I would submit miraculous...and science doesn't deal in miracles..only data and observation. Now, ID is said to deal only with data and observation as well, that it is a valid science. So, ID must provide a rational framework for
explaining speciation, what appears frequently as 'common ancestry' based on DNA and genetic
studies of most species within genera and phyla. If ID does, I have not seen it. BTW, you are
making me learn a lot more about
evolutinary theory than I did..as I recall your profile typology was
'teacher and helper'..:)
*and gives rise to biblical literalism vs allegoricalism
For Kris (above), good luck with your home schooled little guys..back when I was in 3rd grade, it was just the plain old 3 R's. There is an ID proponent at our university. He works with the Discovery Institute on theory, but
does not teach it. My daughter had him for a couple of microbiology courses which were unrelated to evolution. Yes,
he is not well accepted by the
science department. But, he has not been 'Expelled'. :)
bb-
it is good he has not been 'expelled'
i do not hide the evolutionary theory from my boys either. in almost every book we buy, most recently one on volcanoes, some sort of evolutionary theory is in them. not told as theory, but told as fact.
this volcano book really drew my 8 yr old in, so we bought it. when he got home he began to read it. the front cover gives the explanation of how planets were made via the big bang theory: particles in space floating around, two of the big ones collided, and what was left was sour solar system and all the moons.
i knew what he was reading...but i just continued my chores and waited for the questions. he then stopped and said:'mom, this book gives no credit to God for the creation of the world'. i then told him that there are many people who do not believe God had anything to do with it or do not even believe God exists. They believe everything happened by chance. He thought for a while and then said he had one question for the people who believe in the Bid Bang theory and who don't believe in God. I asked him what the question was. He said:'Where did all the particles floating out in space that collided to make our planet come from?
good question.
kw
Hi BB,
Due to the very reality that "Speciation takes place over long periods of time, so we will not see it", this part of Evolution can not be Observed or Studied.
Intelligent Design is accused often of being something that can not be Observed or Studied, mainly because the Designer, Himself, who ever He is, can not be Observed or Studied, all we can Observe is the Evidence of the Design, yet the fact that Speciation has never been Observed and can not be Studied because it takes place over such a long time period is not considered a problem.
Why is it that the fact that God Himself can not be studied is a problem, but the fact that Speciation can not be studied is not. Isn't this a Double Standard? Shouldn't the two Theories be subject to the same rules?
You pointed out an example that is "often used to Explain that portion of the Theory". "Explaining" a Theory and Proving it, though, are two different things.
The Intelligent Design Advocates are not going to explain the phenomena of Speciation, because they do not believe that it exists. With the help of a Designer, each Species can be Designed separately. Speciation, as explained by Evolutionists is not necessary in order for the Designing of each species by an Intelligent Designer to take place.
No where in the Bible, does it say that the creation will continue "Unchanged". Just because God never changes, does not mean that His Creation never changes. This is a misinterpretation of the Scriptures.
Due to the presence of sea shells found on the top of high mountains, there is Scientific Evidence that the Earth was at one time covered with water. Not everything in the Bible can be proved Scientifically, but there have been some interesting Archeology findings that confirm nearly all of the places mentioned and many of the stories. More importantly, however, Science and Archeology have not been able to disprove anything written there.
Interestingly, the order of Creation, as recorded in the Scriptures is the same as the order that Evolutionists claim the world Evolved. The order matches, just not the method.
Perhaps the teacher you mentioned at your University has not been Expelled because he is very careful what and how he teaches.
Kris,
Thanks again, so much for your input. It is nice when I'm not left here totally alone with an Intelligent Liberal like BB. He challenges me constantly and keeps hanging around making me think. It can be tiring at times, but is also a lot of fun, so I'm glad he comes by.
When I first saw the mention of Volcanoes in your comment I couldn't help thinking of another area of Traditional Science that was brought into question after the eruption of Mount Saint Helen's. The lava flow from this eruption created deep canyons in a matter of hours, whether than "Millions of Years".
This brought to light an alternative explanation as to how Canyons are made and has brought about a line of Scientific Thinking known as Catastrophe Theory, in contrast to the Traditional "Erosion Theory" that has been accepted for such a long time and as you would expect, Scientists are resistant to considering the new idea even though Catastrophe, in and of itself, has nothing to do with God or Religion. This is nothing more than a new Observation.
This just goes to show you how Scientists are so often resistant to New Observations that bring into question Old Theories. They seem to forget that there was a time in which the common belief was that the world is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the Universe, whether than the Sun and each of these new Observations brought much criticism to those who introduced the new ideas as if the sole purpose of such Scientists was to "Undermine Science". Isn't it interesting how history keeps repeating itself with the same Resistance to new Observations.
Interestingly, Catastrophe Theory lends well with the idea that the Earth may be younger than Scientists originally thought. Oh boy, could this give credence to the Creation idea? Naturally, Scientific or not, there are people, including Scientists, that are going to find this a good enough reason for this new Scientific Idea to be squashed.
Sympathies for putting up with me. :) Did I not admit that TRUTH
is your opinion? :) You will be dismayed to learn that a portion of my library concerns biblical archeology; so whether we chose to
look at the Old Testament as history, or a collection of observations by the hebrew prophets written quite awhile after the facts (Hebrew being one of the NE semitic languages and the alphabet a late development compared to say, heiroglyphics or
cunieform) no doubt colors our view. For example, some..not all archeologists find evidence for Jericho having laid in ruins for some 350 years prior to Joshua..
whether 'hebrew' came from the
'hiparu' referred to in early
Egyptian writings...bandit tribes
of Caananites; others find evidence for the incipient Hebrew as arising among the Caananites, hence the term 'El' sometimes appearing in biblical literature,
This of course, has nothing to do with religion, but rather archeologists attempting to gather
evidence from those times (other than those scholars who study religious development)..the ones who note the baby in the reed basket first appears in the Akkadian language and refers to a king of 2300 BC known as Sargon I.
(Most Christian, Jewish and secular writers place Abraham at
about 200-250 years later..Moses and the exodus around 1500 BC)
Flood stories abound: Epic of Gilamesh, tablet 2700BC, Several Akkadian accounts, and the Epic of
Atra-Hasis, Babylonian cunieform
ca 1900BC, etc. Creationists (I had to look that one up) place the flood at 2403+/-11BC, based on
biblical geneologies. Many events and descriptions in the OT have been verified by archeology, others open to scepticism...archeologists, like
scientists are just plain curious with no ax to grind. Perhaps the problem of science and religion can be traced to
this tale. Bruno was burned at the stake for saying the earth circled the sun: his last words to his inquistors were "Perhaps you, my judges, pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it."..the chief prosecutor, Cardinal Bellarmine, was made a Saint. After more than
400 years....the church apologised.
What have we learned in 400 years?
Hey, when are we getting back to
white puppies? :)
I appreciate Kris's comments as well. Teaching little kids is challenging, interesting and fun.
Let them read what interests them, but remember, kids watch how we act rather than listen to what we say :) Mine always sat around the table after supper and we played
rapid-fire questions and answers,
Their favorite was one I called categories...:OK, who wants to try
19th century composers? ME, ME
Anyone want to try Ukranian cities?
ME ME. They are grown up and gone.
My wife doesn't respond to "OK,
want to try famous Arctic explorers? LOL. Sounds like you are doing fine....Lista, don't take me too seriously, I'm just an opinionated old guy. :)
Well, I wrote a whether long response to you, BB, and I've decided to take a break before proof reading and posting it. The "White Puppy" is getting restless and I'm going to have to take him for a walk or something, perhaps I'll get back with you some more later this evening.
Hi BB,
What I wrote you yesterday was close to a page long on my Word Processor. When I write things this long, I like to break my comments down into two comments, whether than one. Here is the first half...
You're not that hard to put up with, BB, I just get tired of thinking once in awhile and you make me think. As to "Sloppy Science", I'm not going to be able to be sloppy around you. You'll catch me and correct me and that's good.
Of course I'd like to think that the TRUTH is my opinion. lolol, but unfortunately, that was just a joke.
I can deal with the fact that you have a good Archeology section in your library. You are probably smarter than me, but what else is new. There is a lot of wisdom in Children you know. One once said that "You may be smarter than me, but that still doesn't mean that you're right." That's got to be the most profound thing that I've ever heard and oh so true. :)
What's interesting is when you compare the Archeology relating to the Bible to the Archeology relating to other Holy Books from other Religions. Apparently, the Bible does better than the others by a long shot. That might be something that you'd be interested in studying.
Have you ever read any of Lee Strobel's books. He was an Atheist, who later became a Christian after doing a lot a research trying to disprove Christianity. I believe he even has one about Evolution and Intelligent Design. Here are some of his titles..."The Case for Christ", "The Case for Faith" and "The Case for a Creator".
If not all Archeologists are in agreement on the actual date in which Jericho was laid in ruins, then I'll go with the Biblical account. Thank you.
I'm not an expert on the origins of Biblical language. We study the languages that the Bible was originally written in and also the culture to which it was written to for the sake of restoring the accuracy. The Hebrew and Jewish scribes were very careful when they copied the manuscripts. Even the smallest error would cause them to destroy a page and start over.
Some of the Original Manuscripts were written an Aramaic and than translated into Hebrew, but the originals still exist. The New Testament was originally written mostly in Greek. Any part of it that wasn't was translated into Greek soon after wards.
I guess it is possible that Moses' Mother was repeating a practice of hiding a baby in the reeds that had been done earlier in History or she, out of necessity, came up with a similar idea.
As to the flood story accounts, 2700 and 2403 BC are relatively close. I find the fact that the Akkadian Accounts generally come up with later dates interesting, as if maybe their calendar is different in some way.
Lack of proof for something may result in Skepticism for some, yet it is not hardly disproof of anything.
We're up to 39 comments again. Right around 37, 38 or 39 comments, I have a tendency to pause and begin to wonder if I should do another post, which as you can see, I have already done. When I submit this comment, it will be number 40.
Let me know if you still want to continue this discussion and perhaps I can still do another post on it. I decided, though, to do a lighter post in the mean time.
As to the "White Puppy", BB, you can comment on my "White Puppy" posts any time that you like. With Comment Moderation on, I will not miss the comment, no matter how far back in my blog it becomes.
Well, you are a very smart "Opinionated Old Guy", BB. lol, and I very much enjoy talking to you. :)
OK..thread too long. Just an observation about "What's interesting is when you compare the Archeology relating to the Bible to the Archeology relating to other Holy Books from other Religions." My take was based on OT and archeology. Almost all peoples and religions of the OT
times are dead..gone; have been for millenia. But Judaism and its offspring (Christianity, Islam) have flourished. A legitimate argument is that since the others long since were discarded, Judeo-Christian beliefs are based on religious truth. I have heard of Lee Strobel, but not read his apologetics (I tried St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo, but got mired in logics and areas of disagreement) It is unfair and biased on my part, but I find myself disliking the personality of the author..for example St. Paul, Augustine, Luther, Calvin. But I like
Desiderius Erasmus, St. Thomas More & Blaise Pascal. Because they seem like nice guys. So
much for critial thinking huh? :)
..here endeth the thread!
...er, I can't do that, can I..
only the blog owner can..is it like cotton sheets..we do a thread count? Hmmmm
The only way that I'm truly going to be able to bring this thread to a close is by continuing it with another post, so I guess I better get at it.
Post a Comment